Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaineShark]

Absorbtion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

I know what absorption is.

We can measure ('note) the level of atmospheric CO2. We can only estimate its level of production and absorbtion by various sources. This is why models use a 'cheat'. Regardless of what our esitmates are... they must coincide with the measurement.

Except there are no accurate measurements for certain time periods.

The point of the hypothesis was not about the significance of the human factor when the theory was originally established.
And yes, they started from observing phenomena and hypothesizing from there. Which is why the early studies focused on solar output and orbital variations.

That's wholly incorrect.  The proponents of AGW exclusively started out blaming humans, then looking for data they could "massage" to support that.

Those who started out studying solar output and such... still claim that solar output and such are responsible for the temperature fluctuations.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

The 'burden of proof' is data to confirm that increased CO2 affects EM [absorption]  [...]

No, it's all of the points I've listed above, and possibly more.  We are talking about the political agenda behind "Global Warming" pushing a global "enabling act" that will make a very significant step toward ending all intergovernmental competition and funding an all-powerful universal government.  All claims of a "moral imperative" need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before aggression can be initiated to address them.  They haven't done anything remotely close - they can't even get their act together and defend their temperature data for the past, much less make accurate arguments about the future!

[Jerry]

Ever since National Geographic reported that the temperature change on Mars is pretty much tracking the change on earth I put my money on the Sun being the cause.

[John Edward Mercier]

Again Alex... your talking about the politics, not science.

Jerry,
The article is the view of a scientist talking about changes over the eons. As the ice caps on Mars melt... they release CO2.
Scientist have already known about the causes of the glacial ages... which another scientist with pretty good math theorized was orbital forcing.

For solar radiation to have a short term measurable effect, we would see that mimic the solar cycle.

Joe...
Its best never to use periods without measurement. And to gauge direct effects within the lab.
And the proponents original concieved an Ice Age. The applied science never being more than a guess.

[Alex Libman]

Again Alex... your talking about the politics, not science.

More accurately, I'm talking about philosophy, which must guide the direction of how science is applied.  By itself science is just a means of answering logically formulated questions, and much of the time answers are inconclusive.  Science cannot tell you the value of pollution or of (post)industrial civilization, it can only measure concrete things.  When questions are not framed logically, the whole exercise is meaningless - garbage in, garbage out.

[John Edward Mercier]

It does.
But the basic, and even applied, science being used to develop ET colonization will most likely proceed down different philosophical paths. Whereas the politics seems to be more concerned with it as a revenue generator.

[Alex Libman]

REPORT: Climate change 'researchers' caught padding sea level data...

[John Edward Mercier]

Applied science.

[Alex Libman]

Egg-on-ecofascist-face news roundup:

• Even U.N. Admits That "Going Green" Will Cost $76 Trillion

• There has been no global warming since 1998

• Global Warming Scientist James Hansen Exposed

• Recent extreme weather events not caused by global warming

• Why Insurance Companies Hype Climate Change

• Industry begins to count the true cost of 'climate change'

[John Edward Mercier]

Applied Science. Do you know what applied science is?

[Alex Libman]

A science that applies for a government grant?  ::rimshot::  

Seriously, repetition does not make up for lack of a coherent point.  Go play in traffic.

[John Edward Mercier]

My coherent point is your an imbecile.

The basic science is not abstract. And the applied science is not settled, nor even close.
You keep equating the two to be the same.

[Uncle Walt]

If everyone had just listened to dad and left the thermostat alone, global warming/cooling wouldn't be an issue.

 

[John Edward Mercier]

Its not a real issue.
Some people just wish to use it as an excuse for revenue enhancement.

[Alex Libman]

• New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism...

• Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic placed on leave...

• Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism